Under Barack Obama, the U.S. is currently bombing Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya. According to some reports (see here and here), we can add Iran to this ever-expanding list. [Update: An Informed Comment reader named Shannon pointed out that in fact the United States bombed Iran in 1988 during Operating Praying Mantis, an act that “cannot be justified” according to the International Court of Justice.]

Thanks to American arms and funding, our “stalwart ally” Israel has bombed every single one of its neighbors, including Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt. Israel has also bombed Tunisia and Iraq (how many times can Americans and Israelis bomb this country?).

The total number of Muslim countries that America and Israel have bombed comes to fourteen: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Iran, Sudan, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and Tunisia.

I wonder where those silly Muslims come up with the conspiratorial, absolutely irrational idea that the U.S. is waging war against the Muslim world?

If you haven’t already seen this video, I strongly suggest you watch it:

With seven active wars in seven different Muslim countries, it is quite an amazing thing that Americans can have the audacity to ask: “why are Muslims so violent and warlike?”

But, that’s just the tip of the iceberg. The New York Times reports that President Barack Obama “widened” the war, which is now being waged across “two continents” in “roughly a dozen countries — from the deserts of North Africa, to the mountains of Pakistan, to former Soviet republics,” using “robotic drones and commando teams” as well as “contractors” and “local operatives.”

Even more worrisome, the Washington Post reports that America’s “secret wars” are waged by “Special Operations forces” in “75 countries” (and “that number will likely reach 120″); in other words, the United States will have engaged in military acts in over 60% of the world’s nation-states. After all of this, Americans will turn around and ask: “why are Muslims so violent and warlike?”

Could it possibly be more obvious that the War on Terror is just a pretext for global domination?

* * * * *

Every four years, Americans get the illusion of choice: the choice between Democrat and Republican. In terms of foreign policy, the difference is like the difference between Coke and Pepsi. In the last election, John McCain sang a variation of the famous Beach Boys song “Barbara Ann,” changing the lyrics to “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran!”; meanwhile, Barack Obama hinted at expanding the war to Pakistan. The American voter was given the choice not between war and peace, but between war against Iran or war against Pakistan.

In the national discourse, there exists a bipartisan consensus on the need for perpetual war: both candidates agreed on the need to expand the War on of Terror and attack more Muslim countries. There was no confusion about whether or not to bomb, invade, and occupy–the question was only where to do this. If the Muslim world were imagined to be a turkey, the question was then only whether to begin munching on the leg first or to start with the breast.

President Barack Obama may have disagreed with his predecessor’s tactics, but he agreed with the Bush/Cheney world view. Obama may have thought we could move around troops here and there–let’s move some of these troops from Iraq to Afghanistan–but he did not disagree with the basic premise, overall methods, and goals of the Bush/Cheney War on of Terror.

Interestingly, Obama was considered to be “the peace candidate”; even more absurd of course was that he ended up winning the Noble Peace Prize. While it is true that the Democratic Obama has tended to use less hawkish language, in terms of actions Obama has a worse record than Bush: Obama has expanded the War on of Terror, both in terms of covert and overt wars.

Why did a “liberal” Democrat (Barack Obama) end up being more warlike than a “hawkish” Republican (George Bush)? There is of course the obvious explanation of war inertia. But aside from this, there must be something deeper, which is apparent if we look at the situation between what were historically the two large parties in Israel.

Western media (see Time Magazine, for example), portrays the Labor Party as “dovish” and Likud as “hawkish”. Certainly, in terms of rhetoric this is true. But, is it really true? According to experts in the field–such as Prof. Noam Chomsky and Dr. Norman Finkelstein–Labor has had a far worse track record toward Palestinians than the Likud. Labor and Likud play good cop, bad cop toward Palestinians–or rather bad cop, badder cop. But while the two parties disagree on rhetoric and tactics, they share similar overall goals.

The same is the case with Democrats and Republicans. The Democrats use softer rhetoric, whereas the Republicans continually push the national discourse (the “center”) rightward. But, because a Democratic president must counter the accusation that he is “weak” on matters of “defense” (Orwell: offense is defense), he must be Strong and Tough against Terrorism. Effectively this means that his war policy becomes virtually indistinguishable from that of the political right.

Furthermore, President Barack Obama has done something that no Republican could do: he has brought bipartisan consensus to the state of perpetual and global war. During the reign of George Bush, prominent liberal progressives criticized his warlike policies. In fact, this was one of the motivating factors behind electing Obama, who would bring “Change.” Yet, when Obama brought more of the same, most liberal progressives fell silent, a hypocrisy that did not go unnoticed by conservatives.

It took a “liberal” Democrat to expand the War on of Terror and give it bipartisan consensus, just as it took a conservative Republican (Richard Nixon) to make peace with Communist China.

Under the two-party system, it really does not matter which side wins. A Republican candidate might sound more warlike than a Democrat, but once in office, he softens his position somewhat due to Democratic opposition (even though most of the Democrats won’t vote against war resolutions). Meanwhile, a Democrat president must prove that he is Strong and Tough against Terrorism, so he hardens his position. In the end, Democratic and Republican presidents are moved to the political “center” (which keeps getting pushed ever more to the right), so that the two are virtually indistinguishable from each other. Perhaps Barack Obama was onto something when he said:

There’s not a liberal America or a conservative America; there’s the United States of America.

It is true: America’s politicians are united in their endorsement of perpetual and global war.

The United States has a long history of bipartisan consensus when it comes to waging wars of aggression. In 1846, the country was divided between the hawkish Democratic party led by President James K. Polk and the supposedly dovish Whig party. Polk’s administration saber-rattled against Mexico in order to justify invading and occupying their land. Meanwhile, “[t]he Whig party was presumably against the war,” but “they were not so powerfully against the military action that they would stop it by denying men and money for the operation” (p.153 of Prof. Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States). In fact, the “Whigs joined Democrats in voting overwhelmingly for the war resolution, 174 to 14.” They did so, because “[t]hey did not want to risk the accusation that they were putting American soldiers in peril by depriving them of the materials necessary to fight.” The only dissenters were “a small group of antislavery Whigs, or a ‘little knot of ultraists,’ as one Massachusetts Congressman who voted for the war measure put it.” Perhaps among them was Ron Paul’s great grandfather.

The measure passed the Congress (174 to 14) and the Senate (40 to 2), “Whigs joining Democrats.” The Whigs “could only harry the administration with a barrage of verbiage while voting for every appropriation which the military campaigns required.” In any case, “the United States would be giving the blessings of liberty and democracy” to the Mexicans. Any of this sound familiar?

Flash forward to today and we see the establishment left consistently supporting America’s wars of aggression. Even while these avowed liberals criticize right-wingers for warmongering against Iran, they themselves often saber-rattle against Pakistan and even Saudi Arabia. The right thinks we’re doing something great in Iraq and wants to expand the war to Iran (which we may already have done). Meanwhile, the left thinks we were right to bomb Afghanistan and that we should expand the war to Pakistan (which we’ve already done). Neither left or right opposes foreign wars altogether. The difference is only with regard to the names of the countries we bomb, which doesn’t really matter since the truth is that we are bombing all of them now.

This is because both left and right agree with the Supreme Islamophobic Myth: that Islam (or radical Islam) is the greatest threat to world peace. This inevitably leads to the central tenet of Islamophobia, which is to endorse the Supreme Islamophobic Crime: bombing, invading, and occupying Muslim lands.

Peace can only be attained when one is disabused of this mother of nationalistic myths. This can only be done by realizing that it is the United States that is the greatest threat to peace in the region (look at the map!). Consider that the U.S. has bombed at least a dozen Muslim countries in recent history, whereas zero Muslim countries have bombed the U.S. If “wars of aggression” constitute “the supreme international crime”–as decided during the Nuremberg Trials–then what does it say about the situation when America has initiated multiple wars of aggression against the Muslim world whereas no single Muslim country has done so against the United States?

No Muslim country has attacked us because the risks of doing so are far too great; it would mean almost certain destruction. This is why, even though the map of the Middle East in the image above looks like it does, no Muslim country has the audacity to retaliate. Meanwhile, the U.S.–as the world’s only superpower–can attack multiple smaller countries without fear of significant retaliation to the American heartland. Therefore, it only makes sense for people of conscience, especially Americans, to be highly critical of U.S. foreign policy.

* * * * *

Something else troubling I’ve noticed about the national discourse is how even those opposed to war (or at least one set of wars) will frame their opposition in financial terms. The primary argument to convince Americans against war seems not to be the fact that war is immoral, that bombing countries and killing so many countless civilians is morally repugnant, but rather that it’s just too costly to do so. It’s our wallets, not our soul, that is at stake.

Another argument that takes precedence over the moral argument includes the idea that too many of our troops are dying (victim inversion); alternatively, it is argued (rightfully) that such wars increase the likelihood of terrorism against us (another example of victim inversion).

During the Nuremberg Trials, it was decided that initiating a war of aggression constituted “the supreme international crime”:

To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.

Of what moral character would you consider a Nazi official if he argued against Hitler’s wars on the basis of “it will cost too much German tax payer money” or “it will kill too many German soldiers” or “it may result in retaliation against Germany?” (Refer to Glenn Greenwald’s article on Godwin’s law.)

Would it not be better to use as one’s central argument against America’s wars that it is morally repugnant to bomb and kill people?

How soon we choose to forget. Since Saddam’s coming to power in 1979, Iraq attacked every neighboring country save Syria (which fought among the allies against Iraq in the Gulf War). Ponder Saddam’s 1980-88 war with Iran, his brutal conquering of Kuwait in 1990, his subsequent attacks on Saudi Arabia and Israel, his defeat in the Gulf War of 1990-91, his wholesale murder of Iraqi Shias in 1991-92, his decade-long defiance of every international mandate, and finally, his pushing the envelope to the point that most of the world had quite enough of him by 2003.

Such defiance to our national interests stirred America to pass the “Iraqi Liberation Act” that called for his complete removal. It was good national policy when signed by President Clinton in 1998, and it was good policy when we enforced it in 2003. How quickly we forget.

Also, your ‘better option’ was never in contention for global empire, so you must have intentionally missed the whole point.

The Arab muslim empire was the only global empire of its time ~ the last of the Biblical “gentile empires,” Rome and Persia, had collapsed, leaving Byzantium dominant over a Europe that had descended into barbarism. What Jeremy attempts to do with this glaring falsity is draw me into contending that “Islam” was that Arab muslim empire, and arguing that “Islam” created the greatest empire ever known before or since.

Most of today’s muslims would take the bait, since the muslims extended the Arab empire from the Atlantic to the Pacific in less than two centuries, dwarfing both the Roman empire and the Holy Roman Empire of the Catholic Church by several orders of magnitude, and making the Kingdom of David and even the empire of Solomon look like backwater villages.

But the truth of the matter is that the original muslim nation, which began with the defense of the Medina city-state, unified Arabia, and then drove the colonial empires of Rome/Byzantium and Persia out of The Promised Land (the “world” of the Bible) within the space of a generation, and then, thirty years after the death of the Messenger, degenerated into Arab tribalism, then into Arab nationalism, and then into the Arab empire. In other words, all of the imperial reign of the Arab muslims ~ and their successors the Mongols and various parties until the last, the Ottoman Empire ~ came after the fulfillment of the Biblical prophecies regarding the transformation of The Promised Land, and after the collapse of the dominion of Islam into the barbarism that surrounded it and persists today with American (and other) barbarism all over the world.

So it is true that Islam “was never in contention for global empire” ~ Islam is neither nationalistic nor imperialistic, has no “divine commission” to “rule the nations with a rod of iron,” and did not give rise to the “muslim empire” that lasted for a thousand years. Ambitious imperialists among the muslims have been “in contention for global empire,” following the footsteps of those who forged empire before them, and a fringe minority of ignorant extremists, led by corrupted “scholars” even today, give the enemies of humanity a wealth of brigandage and mayhem that they paint on all of the muslims as a consequence of this long degenerative history.

It’s this kind of subtlety that characterizes the enemies of humanity ~ and muslims ignorant of their own faith, but aware of the sordid history of the Arab and later muslims, assist the enemies with their demonization campaigns by “defending” what is utterly indefensible. Aggressive nationalism, and imperialism of any kind, is anathema to Islam and has no place in the faith whatsoever. God is The Sovereign, and He cloaks men with that attribute for His purposes, to establish justice which those men more often than not turn into tyranny, believing “sovereignty” to be theirs and inheritable from them. America is no different than Rome, Persia, or any other imperialistic “power” that rules by coercive force and intimidation, while deceiving the people who support such adventurism into thinking that they are sovereign by right of their intrinsic superiority over others, rather than possessed of dominion for the role they are to play in establishing God’s Mandate for universal liberty and pluralistic justice tempered with His Mercy.

The Arab muslims, like the Hebrew Israelites before them, and the Roman Christians who followed the pharisaic teachings of the “Mashiach” of Talmudic Temple Israel, lost God’s Favor when they turned from Him to the world at hand, to dominate it for themselves. Empire followed in each case ~ the Arab empire more extensive, more lasting, and more dazzling than any before it. Islam did not produce that empire ~ the ambitions of later muslims did.

And as Jeremy notes, the final effect of their ambitions was total collapse and passage of a corrupted torch of civilization to the European descendants of Japheth ~ who are today using it to set fire to the rest of the world, and most especially to the dead ashes of muslim tyranny.

But Islam, like original Judaism, will never collapse. The Abbasid genocide of the Umayyad dynasty was unable to reach muslim Spain, and it took the Romanized Christians of Europe eight hundred years of waiting for a return of their strength, at a time when muslim Spain was fragmented and vulnerable, to eliminate the human civilization that survived the collapse of the Arab muslim empire.

Which is why Jeremy disdains the documentary account of “The Rise and Fall of Islamic Spain” written by Western historians and scholars that he can’t refute except by lying about it using the truth of sectarian ambitions among the muslims and ignoring the Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Greek, and muslim origins of Europe’s Renaissance that came to Europe from muslim Spain.

The last thing the enemies of humanity want to see at LoonWatch is anything “making Islam known” to the guardians of liberty here. They much prefer those who are knowledgeable about the corruptions of empire than those who know ~ intimately ~ what preceded it.

Sir David writes: I don’t agree that Mr. SAD Ahmad is a troll. Non-standard views certainly, but I find them internally consistent. It doesn’t mean I agree with him all the time 😉 .

But it needs more than that to be a troll. A troll such as Halal dork (or whatever name he is using at the moment) just spreads hate and tries to anger people.

Maybe others should look in the mirror more often at their own motivations for writing on this site.

Thank you, Sir David.

Commissioned to “Make Islam known” using American idiomatic English (i.e., to Americans, including ~ if not primarily ~ American muslims), after being trained and educated in that fard kifayah* profession over the course of 26 years as a practicing, fundamentalist, non-sectarian muslim, I took up this “lightning rod” post on the Web in 1997 and immediately became a target of the enemies of humanity ~ including, among other professionally-organized and institutionalized parties, those who dominate the terminally-collapsed millennial muslim world as “scholars” and “jurists” still seeking an exclusive global imperium with coercive powers. I, who am neither king nor prophet, but a flesh-and-blood man capable of error, do not wear the name “David” lightly.

The Web is most certainly the theater of a battle for the hearts and minds of the people ~ here in the ethereal realm we rightly call “the heavens,” we are at war. At root, it is a war of those who seek to perpetuate their subjugation of mankind by force against those who seek to liberate humanity by inspiration. In order to preserve their material dominions, the enemies of humanity must counter the force of inspiration ~ which they have done successfully for millennia, corrupting every religious faith as it became institutionalized, pitting one set of utopian idealisms against another, inducing fear and suspicion by dissimulation and false moralities, dividing and conquering by calculated allocation of material resources, playing on ignorance, superstition, insincerity, doubt, and insecurity to fragment any communion other than their own. The enemies deploy two main strategies:

“Divert, distort, denigrate, disrupt or destroy any discussion of anything adverse to any agenda of the enemies of humanity;” and
“Dismiss, discredit, denounce, demonize or deny any proponent or professor of humanly effective inspiration.”

Jeremy is pursuing both strategies in this discussion ~ diverting discussion of the “Eye-Opening Graphic: Map of Muslim Countries that the U.S. and Israel Have Bombed” and its implications on the one hand, into discussion of the Cold War and other modern conflicts, and dismissing my proof against his contention that “there has never existed a better option” (than American domination) by falsely demonizing muslim Spain to discredit me in the eyes of the ignorant, and denouncing me as a troll essentially on the basis of my challenge to his assertions ~ a challenge he cannot address, because undeniable history shows that muslim Spain was more libertarian than America, despite the intramural wars among the muslims that eventually destroyed it, and was moreover the immediate source of the restoration of Europe from the papal Dark Ages and the decivilization that followed Charlemagne.

Jeremy is the professional counterpoint to the trolls ~ a voice of reason, pretentiously “objective,” the matador with the twin swords of those strategies of the enemies of humanity.

So there is the map: “Most of today’s armed conflicts involve muslims” because most of today’s armed conflicts are wars waged against lands with muslim majorities.

“Oil” is not the reason. America’s real oil reserves are still in the ground, the wells capped or not yet brought into production. “Newly-discovered” oil deposits all over the globe were found precisely where geologists knew where to look as long as a century ago ~ the petroleum deposits of the Middle East were mapped before World War I. “Cheap oil” is not the reason ~ as the currently-used resources are drained, it becomes increasingly expensive to bring the product up from the subtrata. The plan, formulated long ago, has been to use up every other nation’s resources before using our own, establishing a monopoly on industrial energy resources. “Fear of a nuclear-armed Iran” is a pretext by which to prevent Iran from developing alternative energy and freeing itself from petroleum dependence ~ as was also the case with Iraq, decades ago. The world must be kept dependent on the West, others cannot be allowed to surpass our industrial and technological capacities, as Germany had started to do with freeways, fuel-efficient automobiles, television telephones, rubber from coal, and other “more recent technological developments” of the western “democracies.”

Subjugation is the end that justifies any means, liberation is the enemy. And “there has never existed a better option” than American domination.

Now repeat after me: “SAD Ahmad is a troll. SAD Ahmad is a troll.” Say it enough and you’ll be able to get back to that American Dreaming … of the glories of Athens and Rome or the distant paradise of Monaco or the French Riviera or whatever suits your fancy and rest assured that after this “best of all possible worlds” destroys this new “enemy of freedom,” the price of whiskey and whimsical witches will wither and we’ll all live happily ever after.

LoonWatch should be flattered by the fact that the enemies have sent in some professional talent. That means you’re having an effect.

** *** ***** ******* *********** ************* *****************

*A “fard kifayah” is a duty that is mandatory on the muslim community as a whole, distinguished from a “fard ‘ain” which is a duty incumbent on every individual muslim who has attained the age of reason. Someone in the community must be fulfilling a fard kifayah duty, or everyone in the community is in error. Some fard kifayah professions are passive ~ “understanding the law” for example, which may be called into service only on occasion ~ while others are active ~ “motherhood” for example, the nearest to the prophetic office that anyone can reach, and the most vital to the community ~ and all are at least minimally supported (i.e.,enabled; these are not “paid professions”) by the entire community. (“Mothers,” for example, are provided with a man responsible for relieving the mother of any material or social concerns, so that she can devote the entirety of her concern to her children; whereas ‘Umar ibn Khattab, Commander of the Faithful after Abu Bakr, was provided with a sufficiency of olive oil and bread to eat, and a garment, after he had spent everything he owned on fulfilling that duty except the house that he lived in.) Agriculture, architecture, apparel, and administration account for most of the fard kifayah professions. “Making Islam known” is a function of siyasa, or “political administration.”

Sir David ( Illuminati membership number 5:32) Warning Contains Irony

I dont agree that Mr SAD Ahmad is a troll . none standard views certainly but I find them inturnally consistant.It doesnt mean I agree with him all the time 😉 .
But it needs more than that to be a troll. A troll such as Halal dork (or whatever name he is using at the moment ) just spreads hate and trys to anger people .
Maybe other should look in the mirror more often at there own motivations for writing on this site .

TheBig_T

the truth about terrorism and war

Jeremy

Farlowe and Talal, do not waste your time on the ‘Sheik’

He is an obvious troll. He is trying to suggest that a society that encourages slavery, run by an all powerful ruler, burned books and libraries, violently crushed rebellions and beheaded and burned surrendering rebels, used mercenary armies to suppress rebellions,had pogroms against jews and forced non muslims to pay the Jizya tax that was created through the violent suppression its enemies and in the end could not even sustain itself was somehow the better option for an ideal society.
among other lunacies and contradictions.

@Talal I know very well what “Sheikh” means. My point is that someone who claims to have American indigenous and European heritage has an Arabic name. Why? Why would an Amerindian/European take on an Arabic name? Did he just happen to like the sound of “Shaykh al-Hajj Dawud Ahmad”.

In my country some converts to Islam change their names to Arabic sounding names. It is ironic that someone who abandons their own culture for Arabic culture calls someone else a slave because they haven’t converted to Islam. It’s a feeble attempt at Arab religious imperialism.

Talal

“Farlowe Says:
December 15th, 2011 at 11:22 pm
Sheik AlHajj Dawud Ahmad has 17 centuries of American heritage (indigenous?) and three centuries of European ancestry ….and he has a distinctly Arab sounding name. I have 70,000 years of Australian ancestry and two hundred years of European ancestry …. and no way am I changing my name to “Sheik”. LOL. Who is the slave there?”

Sheikh (pronounced /ˈʃiːk/ sheek or /ˈʃeɪk/ shayk; Arabic: شيخ‎ šayḫ, mostly pronounced [ʃeːx], plural شيوخ šuyūḫ) — also spelled Sheik or Shaikh, or transliterated as Shaykh — is an honorific in the Arabic language that literally means “elder” and carries the meaning “leader and/or governor”. It is commonly used to designate the front man of a tribe who got this title after his father, or an Islamic scholar who got this title after graduating from the basic Islamic school. Sheikha is the female equivalent, although these are uncommon in the Arabic world. A sheikh who is wise is called ḥakīm adjective (wise) حكيم‎, ḥākim noun (governor) حاكم‎, yaḥkum verb (govern) يحكم‎; and can govern. The scholar sheikh here can govern but can not lead directly because the leader is the imam which is based upon the Qur’an and authentic Sunnah; on the other hand the family sheikh can always lead but can not govern unless he is wise. Although the title generally refers to a male, a very small number of female sheikhs have also existed.[citation needed]
It also refers generally to a man over forty[1] or fifty[2] years of age. While even a new Muslim can be called a sheikh if he is diligent in seeking the knowledge of Islam based upon the Qur’an and authentic Sunnah, he can be referred to as such by those he teaches. Usually, a person is known as a sheikh when he has completed his undergraduate university studies in Islamic studies and is trained in giving lectures.[1] The word sheikh under this meaning is a synonym of Alim, pl. Ulama (a learned person in Islam, a scholar),[3] Mawlawi, Mawlānā, Muhaddith, Faqīh, Qadi, Mufti, Hadhrat or Hafiz.

do people like you even bother to look stuff up before posting? Or does your stupidity preclude you from thinking?

Jeremy

Also, your ‘better option’ was never in contention for global empire, so you must have intentionally missed the whole point.

Jeremy

Shaykh al-Hajj Dawud Ahmad, M.S.J.D. Says:

So, I am assuming you are a troll, as you refused to answer my questions and continue to make assumptions about my position, while providing a documentary to back up your ridiculous position. It would seem that you could use your big people words and just explain it yourself, but apparently that’s not possible. also, cause you come across as a lunatic….
good luck with that!

Farlowe

Sheik AlHajj Dawud Ahmad has 17 centuries of American heritage (indigenous?) and three centuries of European ancestry ….and he has a distinctly Arab sounding name. I have 70,000 years of Australian ancestry and two hundred years of European ancestry …. and no way am I changing my name to “Sheik”. LOL. Who is the slave there?

Jeremy, attempting to take advantage of the short memory of readers, persists: you said that this was some sort of perfect society, or at least the best there could be, and I simply replied that a perfect society would have had all the things I listed …

Two days ago you wrote: While you may all see me as an apologist for Americans, I am in the sense that they are better than all the rest. there has never existed a better option.

Yesterday I responded: Oh, but there has existed ~ and flourished ~ a better option, one that promotes, rather than obstructs, genuine liberty and genuine federalism. Two hours later you challenged: Are you going to share what this other option was? or just assert it and leave it intentionally vague, and therefore free from Criticism? So I posted a link to this documentary ~ to which you replied: I can’t say I have watched the documentary, while changing the goal posts, now falsely asserting “you said that this was some sort of perfect society, or at least the best there could be,” neither of which I said.

I challenged your assertion that “there has never existed a better option,” and showed you an example of one, and you cannot answer the challenge so you label undisputed history presented by American scholars as “propaganda” and disingenuously allege that “you said that this was some sort of perfect society, or at least the best there could be.”

It is this kind of intellectual dishonesty that characterizes your posts. You cherry-pick what you assert as facts to support your provocative apologia, diverting the discussion from the visual map evidence of America’s final effort to eradicate Islam on behalf of the Zionist nation of Israel that masks itself as the Israel of Moses, David, Solomon, and Jesus. You move among the final heirs of Abraham, excusing our aggressions and trespasses as “better than all the rest,” all the while urging us to continue to oppose, attack and destroy our own heritage in Abraham that has, does, and will, indeed, put America at the head of humanity. You abuse the liberty that God has ordained and America has established, to corrupt and destroy it and render us unable to restore it and enable the rest of humanity to appreciate and enjoy it on their own account. You fly a false flag of the enemies of humanity and come here to impede the efforts of guardians of liberty with deceit masquerading as reasoned civil discourse among the cognoscenti.

And it’s all for nothing ~ the enemies of humanity have gained the dominion for which you sold your souls, and it will not be taken away, it will burn forever, until the only oppression is your oppression of yourselves and the hypocrites who share your ambitions, who you keep close to you lest their plotting against you go undetected. Or is it you who are kept close, being watched by those more knowledgeable lest you stray from their dominion over you? In any case, one nation in Denial of God’s Mercy, you are all of a piece no matter how you mask yourselves.

Fat Man and Little Boy prevented the Soviets from sharing Japan with America as Japan and Germany had been partitioned at Yalta. Staged in Manchuria, still dangling the carrot of “alliance in the East” for which Hirohito was given false hope, Stalin watched in anticipated dismay as Japan chose American dominion over Germany’s fate. What we don’t know yet is whether this was Roosevelt’s plan all along, after failing to bait Hitler with American attacks on German shipping in the Atlantic and succeeding in baiting Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor, and choosing the more distant Pacific theater vassals for the longer term. In any case, Truman announced the apocalyptic realignment among the houses of effective power with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, drawing a line in the sand as Zionist Israel prepared to declare its borderless state.

The hidden histories, no longer occluded, spell out a novus ordo seculorum the enemies of humanity did not expect. It seems that they are not the masters of deceptive promises they were allowed to believe they would be.

You may now return to your Jeremiad contention that “there has never existed a better option” than the America we have known. America has not been “the best that we can do,” which ~ known from the past ~ yet remains in a future drawing ever more near. “The south,” as the saying goes, “will rise again” ~ and the cold-hearted despair of the enemies of humanity is no longer as contagious as it once had been. Your future will be warm in any case.